And not a moment too soon…
It appeared that the American Civil Liberty Union would continue its descent from its original role of non-partisan Bill of Rights watchdog and defender to its evolving position as a liberal/progressive advocacy group when it called for Eric Holder’s Justice Department to pursue a civil rights prosecution against George Zimmerman. In a post on the group’s website following the verdict, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero wrote…
Today, our thoughts are with Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, whose young son was taken from them far too soon. Last night’s verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity.This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime. We call on Attorney General Eric Holder to release strengthened guidance on the use of race in federal law enforcement. We also urge Congress to pass the End Racial Profiling Act. These specific actions would go a long way to ameliorate the widespread problem of racial profiling. We need solutions not only in Trayvon Martin’s case, but also systemic reform.
This represented an abandonment and reversal of the ACLU’s long-held position that a federal civil rights prosecution based on the same incident that had resulted in a state prosecution and acquittal is a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of double jeopardy—trying a defendant more than once for the same conduct. Even after the 1992 Rodney King verdict, acquitting the police officers shown on video brutally beating a supine suspect, and the resulting riots, the ACLU had held to its traditional position opposing double jeopardy. The politicization of the organization has progressed rapidly in the intervening 21 years, however, and its Zimmerman position was not unexpected. Naturally, it was seized upon by the news media and supporters of Holder’s politicized “investigation” of Martin’s shooter, to bolster their argument that the cynical and unconscionable was in fact necessary and just—after all, the hallowed ACLU says so.
Well, now the hallowed ACLU doesn’t say so, as it has momentarily retained its remaining integrity after a complete reversal. In a July 18 letter to Holder —that you almost certainly didn’t read about because 1) the ACLU soft-peddled it (the earlier message from Romero is prominent on its website, all the better to cheer the ACLU’s mostly liberal contributors) and 2) the mainstream media didn’t widely report it—the group stated in part…
“We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case.
“Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case.”
Apparently some back-room maneuvering, soul-searching and arm-twisting caused the ACLU to cash in its ticket to ride on the Trayvon Martin- George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck. It was a close call, but integrity isn’t always easy. Good for the American Civil Liberties Union for remembering why it exists, and who it is supposed to protect.
___________________________________________
Pointer: Newsbusters
Ethics Alarms 
Blind squirrel/acorn.
I think it’s more that conservatives ignore all the support the ACLU gives to people on the conservative side of the fence. All the backing of Christian students who are improperly shut down from speaking. All the backing of Christian religious groups that want equal access to public accommodations. All the backing of street preachers who are improperly required to get permits to speak.
Those don’t fit the narrative, so they’re ignored. This was a case where the ACLU did do wrong, but it was an exception, not the rule.
I’d agree with that—I’ve never understood the animus toward the ACLU. My beef with it is what it doesn’t go after, like the Justin Carter case and speech codes on campus—the Fire would not be necessary if the ALCU didn’t slant left. But when it takes an issue, it is almost always to the good.
The animus is because the ACLU fights for the wronged party in first amendment religious issues. In our society, the wronged party in religious issues is, more often than not, a non-Christian. This was especially true in the past. The animus comes because there’s a large religious streak on the right that doesn’t actually want religious freedom and a secular government.
I’m with you on the complaint about some of the things the ACLU doesn’t take up. They fight against pretty much every public organization that is not a college. I don’t understand it.
Or, (looney conspiracy about Chrisitians not wanting a free country aside), it could be just what it is described to be by the ACLU’s detractors- they simply disagree with the ACLU’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause, which is reinterpreted as a “no religion in public” clause by the ACLU more often than many would like. See? No slandering of anyone at all necessary.
The ACLU has repeated represented Christians who just wanted to preach in public. This “no religion in public” idea is a strawman. Can you name a single case where the ACLU was against a non-governmental actor publicly proclaiming their religion?
I stand behind my comment about there being a large religious streak on the right that doesn’t want religious freedom or secular government. That’s neither a slander nor a looney conspiracy theory. The statements backing 10 commandments monuments and crosses on public land are clear. The attacks on the removal of forced prayer from public school are clear. The backing of creationism and religious attacks on evolution are clear.
The ACLU rarely goes back on its leftist perogatives mainly because the bulk of its support comes from left wing zealots. Follow the money. When it does, its mainly a matter of soft stepping just to maintain an illusion of credibility to its original, long abandoned principles.
They also may have realized after the trial coverage how partisan they are likely to appear. They may have hoped that the government could dig up or spin the evidence to portray Zimmermann in a much worse light. When they realized the prosecution had nothing at all, that the incident appears to have been as Zimmerman portrayed it, that the initial police action was appropriate, the realization that they had jumped into a witch hunt and were about to lose a lot of credibility may have hit. The only evidence of any racist act/speech that I heard of in this whole episode was when Trayvon Martin called Zimmerman a cracker, so there is also the possibility that a closer investigation would uncover a racially motivated attack, but not the one they wanted to find.
Tremendous point.
Yes, it was “creepy ass[ed] cracker.”
Reminds me of when the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. was quoted as saying he “wanted to cut [Obama’s] nuts off.” Can you imagine what would have happened if anyone on Fox had said they wanted to castrate or sterilize a mixed-race candidate for president?
Agreed, Michael R.
Its becoming more and more apparent that doubling down on the far-left narrative related to this event has moved WAY past the point of diminishing returns. Therefore, I estimate that ACLU is acting practically, not ethically.
I’m just glad to see someone jumping off the train. How often ford that happen anymore? And that’s the sad thing. Being able to be convinced by evidence or reason is the sign of a mature adult. Initial positions are fine as long as people don’t cling to them forever.
Well, unless they are correct to begin with.
Which reminds me of my favorite Pravda, er, NPR story: Diane Rheem or Terri Gross or Michele Norris (or whatever other earnest, devout, lefty aparatchick newsreader you care to insert here) was lionizing, er, interviewing a woman who was the then head of the ACLU. Diane/Terri/Michele asked something to the effect of: “How did you become interested in doing what you do?” The woman immediately and enthusiastically launched into a story from her days in grade school which went essentially as follows:
One grade school morning, her class was instructed to rise and recite the pledge of allegiance. Suddenly deciding it was wrong to have to do so, she refused. Her teacher sent her to the principal’s office. Her mother was phoned and asked to come down to the school. Upon her arrival, her exasperated mother asked her (and as Dave Barry would say, “And I am not making this up.”) “Why do you have to make a federal case out of EVERYTHING?”
Both Diane/Terri/Michele and the woman thought the story was “wonderful” and moved on with the interview, the balance of which was similarly devoid of even a smidgen of intentional humor or irony.
GZ now a highway hero!
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/22/3514507/george-zimmerman-pulls-family.html
Saw that…ya never know.
If only he had checked, seen that the occupants were African American, and walked away. Boy, would lot of people be eating crow then…almost as many as if they were A-A and he saved them, because he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.
Isn’t that hilarious? And hey, there’s a new Windsor baby to gush about. Why did we ever break away from England and the monarchy? What were those whacky colonials thinking? Thomas Jefferson instead of George III? Dang, we could have had an entire royal family to support.
We have had our own royal family for going on 5 years now.
Is this somehow supposed to be an attack on Obama? I don’t see that at all.
The Kennedys as royalty? Yes. The Bush family as royalty? Yes. Obama? No.